You hit it on the head. Its all about DirectX 11. THe 400 series was the first for nVidia as was the the 5000 series for AMD. Both are midlevel cards for those series.
Completely wrong. The HD 5870 was top tier for the HD 5000 series only surpassed by the HD 5970 which was a dual gpu. The GTS 450 was an entry level card for the 400 series. Check your facts before posting in this thread.
Um... all of the people I know that are PC gamers use NVIDIA graphics cards... so... meh.
I am glad I am not part of the CoD PC community anymore.
Pff...anyone citing 'minimums' is laughable. Being real, today unless you can sustain a minimum of 120 FPS in BO2 and without Stutter you going to have a very miserable experience in Ghosts.
Further, either the forum's min specs are wrong or the Activision site is wrong; GTX 550 Ti & HD 5870. In either case there is a 26% difference in Activision's specs - PassMark Software - Video Card Benchmarks - Video Card Look Up The HD 5870 min spec probably has more to do with vRAM and bandwidth more so than anything else.
Pff... anyone citing Passmark Software benchmarks cannot be considered legit in any way shape or form, look at Tom's Hardware chart. Also the minimum specs list nvidia GTS 450.
Something tells me you are way off in your vRAM and bandwdith theory.
Pff...I know Chris & Don there and those 'charts' mean absolutely zip, most of them are opinion based v/s performance based and taking into account prices at time of publication.
Example a ($400 today) GTX 770 is a slightly less performer (most not all tests) than an HD 7970 GHz/ ($310) R9 280X and the AMD's are cheaper but not a performance match to a GTX 780 but listed on the same level.
To me it is quite obvious, since AMD/ATI cards dont have the PhysX, they have more to work on the GPU.
That is because you don't understand how PhysX works. Let be break this down for everyone who is confused about the PhysX debacle. ¨
PhysX is rendered by the nvidia GPU, but if the user does not have a nvidia GPU he/she can still enable some PhysX effect but the CPU will take over the rendering for PhysX, most of the time there are some exclusive effects only available on nvidia cards, but if you have a pretty beefy CPU you could let it do PhysX with tolerable performance hit. AMD cards cannot render PhysX at all, this is the important thing to remember. PhysX is not mandatory at all, and users can chose to disable it completely. This gives us the conclusion that the three time higher AMD GPU requirements for Ghosts has nothing to do with PhysX as an AMD card cannot render PhysX effects. And IF PhysX was indeed needed then the CPU requirements should have been higher to compensate for AMD GPU users, but they stay the same from BLOPS2.
The high AMD GPU requirement is therefore obviously a coding decision by IW/nvidia, and makes no sense at all, unless some money was exchanged under the counter by IW and nvidia to deliberately underperform on AMD cards. The HD 5870 is to this day a higher tier card, and is three times as powerful as the GTS 450, there is no way that a GTS 450 (which also sucks at PhysX rendering as it is a very low end card) can match the HD 5870 in anything. That is why I have raised the red flag to inform AMD users to what is going on here, a large portion of the CoD PC players who run an AMD card that outperforms the subpar GTS 450 but is still not as powerful as the HD 5870 will most likely struggle.
In a way you're right, but will you please try and calm down before you give yourself an aneurysm. We get it, the specs don't make sense, but, you haven't played the game yet or seen benchmarks of any sorts. Take the tinfoil hat off and relax, we'll see how performance is at or after launch day. Nothing else has to be said here.